Written complaint to Punjab & Haryana HC CJ made damning allegations, indicated bench-hunting

ON MAY 23, THROUGH AN 11 PAGE ORDER,, Punjab and Haryana Chief Justice Sheel Nagu withdrew a corruption case, involving a now-suspended CBI Special Judge, a prominent real estate company and Enforcement Directorate (ED), from a single Judge of the same high court and assigned the matter for hearing to his own bench.What raised eyebrows and led to a lot of speculation in the matter was the possibly unprecedented decision of the soft-spoken but strict chief Justice, following receipt of “oral and written complaints”, to withdraw the matter from Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu even though the judgment had been reserved.Justice Sindhu, while considered to be a tough, pro-liberty Judge, enjoys a good reputation in legal circles.According to sources privy to the case, the case, murky from very initial stages, attained serious obscurity due to subsequent developments, most of which leave little to imagination and too many coincidences, most of them likely to favour the accused.The role of advocate JK Singla, a key reason the case landed before the Bench of Justice Sindhu also leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Singla who subsequently did not make a single appearance in the matter was possibly brought into the case on paper, only to ensure that a different judge - Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul - recused from the case. His conveniently going missing from the case raises serious concerns. .The role of advocate JK Singla, a key reason the case landed before the Bench of Justice Sindhu also leaves a lot of questions unanswered..The story behind the case: Allegations of bench huntingConsider this: In mid-2023, a promoter of real estate firm M3M Group, Roop Bansal, was arrest by the ED in a money laundering case. Another name that popped up during investigation was that of now-suspended Haryana Judicial Services officer Sudhir Parmar, who was then posted as CBI Special Judge in Panchkula and allegedly favoured Roop Bansal and kin— owners of M3M — as well as Lalit Goyal, owner of another prominent real estate firm IREO Group.Internal High Court notings perused by sources suggest that bench-hunting, including by fielding lawyers whose appearance before particular judges, known for their integrity and no-nonsense approach, forced the judges to recuse from the matter, was a much-abused tactic of the accused.This, sources say, was tried in the recent instance too, but which, courtesy a written complaint, made Chief Justice Nagu aware of the shenanigans of the accused. A group of lawyers, including some senior advocates, the sources claimed, also misused the process to get relief for their moneyed clients.As per the complaint that reached the Chief Justice’s desk on May 5, three days after Justice Sindhu had reserved his judgment in the matter, the issue at heart was “blatant misuse of power and law” prevalent in the High Court..In-house committee found several mismatches between Justice Varma’s claims and evidence on ground.The complaint clearly insinuates that the matter was listed before Justice Sindhu through a very well thought of and executed plan, at the centre of which was the move to ensure that the case was not decided by the bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul.Sources say that as per the current roster of the High Court, which came into effect on March 3, all Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cases in which FIR/complaint has been in the State of Haryana and any other connected matter were being listed before the bench of Justice N.S. Shekhawat.However, sources say that before the current case, the same petitioner filed a similar quashing petition, which was listed before the bench of Justice N.S. Shekhawat. On January 14, Justice Shekhawat ordered, “Let this matter be placed before some other Hon’ble Bench after soliciting appropriate orders from Hon’ble the Chief Justice.”On February 13, the case was then listed before the bench of Justice Nehru Kaul.Then it took a strange turn. The petitioner’s lawyer sought the permission of the court to “withdraw the present petition, with liberty to file afresh with better particulars”. Among the four lawyers who were mentioned in the order, there was no one named advocate JK Singla, the lawyer at the centre of the latest controversy.The petitioner’s case was argued by senior advocate Randeep Singh Rai assisted by advocates Kunal Dawar, Rubina Virmani and Arjun Singh Rai.Bansal then filed a fresh petition, with the same plea, through advocates JK Singla and others. Interestingly, cases filed by Singla and the other lawyers for Bansal were not listed before some particular judges, including Justice Nehru Kaul..At the first hearing, after no one appeared for the petitioner, including Singla, the judge, on April 23, posted the matter for the next day “purely in the interest of justice”..Where is advocate YK Singla?On April 19, following an order given by the Chief Justice, who was clearly unaware of the gameplan, the matter was posted before the bench of Justice Sindhu.At the first hearing, after no one appeared for the petitioner, including Singla, the judge, on April 23, posted the matter for the next day “purely in the interest of justice”.On April 24, the court issued notice of motion, with the judge directing that the needful – filing a response on behalf of the respondents – “be done on or before the next date”. The matter was ordered to be posted on April 29 under the “urgent list”.Incidentally, while senior advocate Puneet Bali appeared for the petitioner along with advocates Anmol Chandan, Siddharth Bhardwaj and Gagandeep Singh, advocate Singla, the reason the matter finally came to be posted before Justice Sindhu, was conspicuous by his absence.On the next date, April 29, the respondents, in compliance with the previous order, produced the original record, which was “perused and returned to learned State counsel”. The judge ordered that the “same be brought on the next date of hearing as well”. After the counsel for the State of Haryana sought time to file a written response in the matter, the matter was adjourned for May 2 under the urgent list.Not surprisingly, even on this date, advocate Singla is missing from the court.On May 2, after hearing the matter, Justice Sindhu reserved the main case, while disposing of the miscellaneous application. Once again, advocate Singla was not named among the advocates appearing in the case. The petitioner’s case was argued by senior advocates Puneet Bali and Rakesh Nehra.But before the judgment could be pronounced, the written complaint landed up on the table of Chief Justice Nagu, who ordered that the case be withdrawn from Justice Sindhu, to be heard by the Chief Justice himself. On May 12, when Chief Justice Nagu’s bench began hearing the case, a battery of lawyers, including former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, objected to his decision to withdraw the case from the other Bench. Rohatgi, Bali and Nehra asserted that the Chief Justice “cannot hear a case which was heard, reserved and listed for pronouncement of final order by another Single Bench”.However, the chief justice, in his May 23 order, rejected their contentions and noted that “the only course available to the Chief Justice in the limited reaction time was to withdraw the heard and reserved case from the Single Bench of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu to be listed before another Single Bench”..After months of delay, Union government set to clear names for two High Court Chief Justices.“The object sought to be achieved was to prevent possible damage to the reputation of the institution,” CJ Nagu ruled.In an earlier part of the order, the chief justice said that “the reason for withdrawing this case from the Single Bench Criminal Roster of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, was the receipt of complaint, (oral as well as written), which impelled the Chief Justice to requisition the record of this case from the said Single Bench and constitute another Single Bench comprising of Chief Justice”.This, he added, was done “to give quietus to the complaint, draw curtains to the controversy and save the institution and the concerned Judge from any further embarrassment by deciding the case as expeditiously as possible”..A senior advocate in the Punjab and Haryana HC, speaking to The Leaflet, stated that it was apparent that a “cabal was at work”..Chief Justice Nagu demands Singla’s appearanceOn May 26, when the case was taken up by the bench of Chief Justice Nagu, none of the seniors were present.After the counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment on the plea that the seniors, who would argue the matter, were not available, a visibly-upset CJ gave a severe tongue-lashing to the counsel, at one point of time even wondering where JK Singla was.“Where is Mr JK Singla? We will hear him only. Please ask him to come and argue the matter. Call Mr JK Singla whose power (of attorney) was filed just to get the case out of a particular Bench. This is the kind of professional ethics you are showing…You are encouraging people just to not make any effort…You are destroying the Bar virtually,” Chief Justice Nagu observed, as per a news report.However, while Singla was nowhere to be found, when the case came up for hearing on May 26, it was neither senior advocate Puneet Bali nor senior advocate Vijay Aggarwal who prayed for an adjournment. The advocate, who appeared, said that Aggarwal had fallen ill in the morning while Bali was out of the country.A senior advocate in the Punjab and Haryana HC, speaking to The Leaflet, stated that it was apparent that a “cabal was at work”. “How else does one explain the strange coincidences, if they can be termed so, surrounding the case? The chief justice should order an inquiry into who all were involved,” they said.The senior counsel also said that an independent inquiry should be ordered to find out how advocate Singla entered the matter and then simply disappeared.“Singla couldn’t have been acting alone. Others who had propped him up also need to be exposed,” they said..Note: An earlier version of the piece stated that the corruption case involved a "District and Sessions judge". It has been updated to state that the case, in fact, involved a "now-suspended CBI Special Judge". Any confusion is regretted.

Written complaint to Punjab & Haryana HC CJ made damning allegations, indicated bench-hunting

Related Stories